More documents on this issue have arrived on my desk, a 99 page transcript of the proceeding on October 19, 2011.

In an effort to make sure the record was reported correctly I wanted to take an hour or two to read through the transcript and see if there was any new information that came to light. What follows is information that jumped out as I read the transcript. It appears in chronological order.

According to the transcript Stein is still able to practice law in California. Most of that is covered in part two of this transcript.

MR. STEIN: OKAY. ONE OF THEM IS AN EMAIL FROM THE STATE BAR, DATED OCTOBER 12, TO A CLIENT THAT THE STATE BAR HAS OVER 2,000 CLIENT FILES, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE STATE BAR’S REPRESENTATION TO THE COURT AT THE SEPTEMBER 29TH HEARING AND AT THE SEPTEMBER 19TH HEARING.

THE SECOND IS SOMETHING THAT I REFERRED TO IN MY DECLARATION, REGARDING THE WEBSITE OF MITCHELL J. STEIN & ASSOCIATES AND HOW CLIENTS COME TO THE FIRM, WHICH IS SIMPLY SOMETHING THAT COMES OFF THE WEBSITE.

THE THIRD IS THE MAILER OF BROOKSTONE THAT IS NOT BEING ENFORCED.

AND THE FOURTH IS THE CERTIFICATE OF LLP, WHICH APPEARS TO BE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. AND THAT’S IT. IT’S THOSE FOUR EXHIBITS THAT I WISH TO DISCUSS. AND I’LL BE DISCUSSING THEM. IF I’M NOT ALLOWED TO SHOW THEM IN A BLOWUP, THAT’S FINE. IF THE COURT IS DISINTERESTED IN THEM, I’LL JUST BE MAKING A RECORD.

THE COURT: BUT WHAT I REALLY WANT YOU TO ADDRESS IS YOUR POSITION THAT YOU DIDN’T KNOW THESE OTHER PEOPLE AND THAT YOU WERE NOT INVOLVED. THAT IS WHAT I AM MOST INTERESTED IN.

MS. LEECE: YOUR HONOR, BLITHE LEECE FOR THE STATE BAR.

WE’RE GOING TO OBJECT TO THIS EMAIL ON THE BASIS OF HEARSAY. FIRST OF ALL, WE DON’T KNOW WHO THE PERSON IS THAT SUPPOSEDLY SENT IT FROM THE STATE BAR. THERE’S ABSOLUTELY NO CONTEXT IN TERMS OF THE MESSAGE THAT WAS SENT TO THE STATE BAR AS TO WHAT QUESTION WAS ASKED. AND WE DON’T KNOW —

BOTH OF THESE STATEMENTS ARE COMING IN FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED. IT’S CLEARLY HEARSAY. WE’RE OBJECTING ON THAT BASIS.

MR. STEIN: YOUR HONOR, THEY — I AM NOT SUBMITTING THEM FOR THE PROOF OF THE MATTER ASSERTED. IF THE STATE BAR SUBMITS THAT THE EMAIL THAT SAYS THERE ARE 2,000 CLIENT FILES THAT THE STATE BAR IS HOLDING IS NOT AUTHENTIC, AND THEY’RE WILLING TO SIGN A DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BASED ON THAT REPRESENTATION, I WON’T ADDRESS IT.

THE COURT: WELL, WAIT A MINUTE.

MR. STEIN: THEY CAN’T PLAY HOT AND COLD, YOUR HONOR. I’M JUST MAKING A RECORD.

THE COURT: YOU KNOW, DON’T INTERRUPT ME. JUST A MINUTE.

MR. STEIN: I’M SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: JUST A MINUTE.

YOU’RE ATTEMPTING TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE — AND I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD DO IT FOR OTHER THAN THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED — A PIECE OF PAPER THAT PURPORTS TO BE AN EMAIL FROM THE STATE BAR. THE STATE BAR?

MS. LEECE: YES.

THE COURT: THE STATE BAR. I’M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.

MR. STEIN: YOUR HONOR, WE’RE OFFICERS OF THE COURT. THE STATE BAR STATED TO THIS COURT, AS WELL AS TO JUDGE ELIAS, THAT THEY HAD 240 FILES. I’M —

THE COURT: OKAY. THAT’S FINE. BUT I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS AS EVIDENCE THAT DISPUTES WHATEVER REPRESENTATION WAS MADE BY THE STATE BAR BECAUSE I HAVE TO HAVE AUTHENTICATED EVIDENCE.

NOW, I AM GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.

MOVE ON.

MR. STEIN: WELL, AND I’VE MADE THE RECORD —

THE COURT: YES, YOU HAVE.

MR. STEIN: — THAT THERE’S 2,000 FILES. AND THE STATE BAR HAS THE CAPACITY TO TELL THE COURT WHETHER OR NOT —

THE COURT: NO. YOU’VE MADE THE RECORD THAT YOU HOLD A PIECE PAPER THAT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE THAT THE STATE BAR HAS —

MR. STEIN: AND I’D LIKE AN OFFICER OF THE COURT TO TELL US WHETHER IT’S TRUE OR NOT.

THE COURT: WELL, I DON’T KNOW IF ANYBODY SITTING HERE COULD POSSIBLY DO THAT NOW.

MR. STEIN: OKAY.

THE COURT: NOW, MR. STEIN, WE DON’T HAVE ALL AFTERNOON. I’VE MADE A RULING. YOU’VE MADE YOUR RECORD. MOVE ON.

MR. STEIN: THE PARTNERS OF THE LLP, AS I’VE INDICATED AT THE BEGINNING — WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS FIRST FILED, THE PARTNERS, IN AN APPLICATION TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE STATE BAR, WERE MICHAEL RILEY, MITCHELL STEIN, AND ERIKSON DAVIS, AT THE BEGINNING.

ERIKSON DAVIS — HIS PARTNERSHIP WAS TERMINABLE AT WILL; I’VE TESTIFIED TO THAT. AND THE LLP WAS APPROVED, AND THOSE ARE THE PARTNERS. THERE WAS A PARTNERSHIP OFFER MADE TO A SUBSEQUENT LOS ANGELES LAWYER THREE DAYS BEFORE THE RAID OCCURRED, AND OBVIOUSLY, THAT CHILLED ANY PARTNERSHIP DISCUSSIONS WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL.

ACTUALLY, IT DIDN’T CHILL THEM, BUT IT DELAYED THEM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO IT WAS ORIGINALLY ERIKSON DAVIS, MR. RILEY, AND YOU?

MR. STEIN: THAT’S CORRECT.

AND THE STATE BAR ISSUED A CERTIFICATE. AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE FREEZE ORDERS THAT I THINK THE COURT HAS VERY THOUGHTFULLY ADDRESSED IN ITS TENTATIVE BECAUSE YESTERDAY THERE WAS A HEARING IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT IN FLORIDA. AND WE HAD SOME EMAILS LAST NIGHT REGARDING THE HEARING. THERE’S A DISPUTE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AT THE HEARING. THAT’S OF NO MOMENT. BUT THE RECEIVER WANTS A CHANCE TO STUDY THE WRITTEN ORDER, I BELIEVE, OF THE —

BY THE WAY, THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS PRESENT — NOT HERSELF, BUT AN OFFICER OF THE OFFICE WAS PRESENT — IN FLORIDA YESTERDAY. SO THIS WASN’T A TELEPHONE THING. THIS WAS A — THEY FLEW TO FLORIDA.

AND THE COURT RULED THAT PRIOR TO HIM APPROVING ANY FREEZE ORDER, NONE OF MY PERSONAL ACCOUNTS, NONE OF MY DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION ACCOUNTS, CAN BE FROZEN.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE DOESN’T THINK THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED. AND I’M TELLING — I’M REPRESENTING TO THE COURT THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. AND THE HEARING WAS YESTERDAY.

AND THE FREEZE ORDER — THE COURT HAD INDICATED ON ITS TENTATIVE, I THINK, WITH REGARD TO ONE OF THE EX PARTES THAT THE RECEIVER SAID HE NEVER TOOK ANY OF MY PERSONAL ACCOUNTS.

THE COURT: WELL, WE’LL GET THERE.

MR. STEIN: AND SO THAT’S WHY I WANTED TO GO INTO THE LLP, BECAUSE EVEN — BECAUSE NOTWITHSTANDING WHATEVER ORDERS THERE ARE REGARDING THE LLP, THERE ARE FIVE LLP BANK ACCOUNTS THAT THE STATE BAR HAS FROZEN.

AND THE LLP REPRESENTS CLIENTS. AND THE BANK THOUGHT THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AN LLP. THE STATE BAR THOUGHT THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE THERE WAS AN LLP. THERE WAS NEVER ANY QUESTION. AND THOSE ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN FROZEN. SO IF IT DOESN’T EXIST, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM UNFREEZING THE ACCOUNTS. THERE’S NO MONEY IN THEM, BUT THE LLP CAN’T OPERATE. IT CAN’T DO BUSINESS.

AND THAT — SOME OF THE — THE INJUNCTION, YOUR HONOR, JUST ADDRESSES THINGS THAT I’M NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT I CLAIM I NEVER DID. AND I’LL GO INTO THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THAT. SO THAT’S WHY I KEEP GRAVITATING OVER TO CURRENT OPERATIONS.

THE PEOPLE ARE IN THIS COURTROOM TODAY BECAUSE THEIR HOUSES ARE UNDER ATTACK. IT’S NOT RELEVANT, AS THE COURT HAS INDICATED, WHETHER THEY’RE RIGHT OR WRONG OR THEIR LAWSUITS ARE RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT THEY’RE HERE FOR THIS REASON.

THE LLP REPRESENTS THEM, AND THE LLP WOULD LIKE TO DO BUSINESS. AND IF THE — AND THE STATE HAS SAID IN ITS PAPERS THAT THEY DON’T CARE WHAT LLP MITCHELL J. STEIN WORKS FOR. THEY JUST WANT TO TAKE OVER THE PRACTICE OF MITCHELL J. STEIN. AND I’LL BE ADDRESSING WHETHER THAT’S PROPER OR NOT.

BUT THESE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY AN LLP, AND MITCHELL J. STEIN IS A PARTNER OF THE LLP. AND THE STATE BAR HAS NO PROBLEM WITH — AND SPECIFICALLY, IN THEIR BRIEF, AS THE COURT READ, THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ME PRACTICING LAW IN BEHALF OF AN LLP.

SO THESE CLIENTS ARE HERE —

THE COURT: I DON’T THINK THAT’S WHAT THEY’RE SAYING.

MR. STEIN: WELL, I CAN READ —

THE COURT: YOU DON’T SUDDENLY — YOU ARE NOT AN LLP. YOU ARE AN ATTORNEY, INDIVIDUALLY, FIRST. ALL RIGHT? WHAT THEY ARE SEEKING TO DO IS HAVE YOU — TO ASSUME YOUR PRACTICE.

MR. STEIN: I DON’T HAVE A PRACTICE, YOUR HONOR, SO — YOU KNOW, WE CAN GO INTO 6180.14, WHICH SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT A LAW PRACTICE IS DEFINED, IF IT IS A PARTNERSHIP, AS A SITUATION WHERE ALL THE PARTNERS ARE INCOMPETENT.

I DON’T HAVE A LAW PRACTICE. I TRANSFERRED EVERY ASSET TO THE LLP, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A BANKRUPTCY PLAN OF REORGANIZATION APPROVED BY THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT IN JANUARY — THE END OF JANUARY.

I DON’T HAVE A LAW PRACTICE. I HAD ONE BEFORE. I’M WILLING TO ADDRESS — AND THE ISSUES OF 20 WRONGDOING BEFORE —

AND THE EXAMPLE THAT THE STATE BAR GIVES IS, IF PAUL HASTINGS — I THINK THE COURT REMEMBERS. IF PAUL HASTINGS HAD A PARTNER THAT WAS ILLEGALLY MARKETING, THEY COULD GO IN TO PAUL HASTINGS, AFTER GOING INTO COURT — THEY WOULD GET A COURT ORDER; THEY COULD GO IN AND TAKE ALL THE FILES THAT THEY BELIEVED THAT LAWYER HAD.

AND YOUR HONOR, RESPECTFULLY, THAT IS THE WORST AND MOST PREPOSTEROUS ARGUMENT I’VE EVER HEARD. CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT PAUL HASTINGS WOULD DO IF THE STATE BAR EVEN MADE AN APPLICATION TO GO INTO THEIR FILE ROOM AND SEIZE ALL THEIR FILES AND CLOSE THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS, BASED ON THE ACTIONS OF ONE PARTNER?

THE COURT: YEAH, I THINK I KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD DO. SOMEBODY ELSE FROM PAUL HASTINGS, WHO THE STATE BAR DID NOT SEEK TO ASSUME — EXCUSE ME, DID NOT SEEK TO ASSUME THE JURISDICTION OVER THAT INDIVIDUAL’S PRACTICE, WOULD STEP IN AND TAKE OVER THOSE CASES.

MR. STEIN: AND THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THIS LLP WANTED TO DO.

THE COURT: NO, NO. YOU HAVE A FLORIDA — YOU HAVE A FLORIDA ATTORNEY, WHO IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA. AND MR. ERIKSON DAVIS IS OPERATING AS THE LAW OFFICES OF ERIKSON DAVIS AND NOT AS A MEMBER OF YOUR LLP.

THE COURT: HEREIN LIES THE REAL PROBLEM, BECAUSE YOU AND MR. DAVIDSON (SIC) KEEP TAKING DIFFERENT POSITIONS. MR. DAVIDSON HAS FILED PAPERS IN THIS COURTROOM UNDER THE LAW OFFICES OF ERIKSON DAVIS.

I HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT AN LLP WAS FORMED IN THIS STATE. I’VE SET FORTH EVERYTHING. WE’RE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT ANYMORE, UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING NEW TO GIVE ME ON THAT ONE.

MR. STEIN: I HAVE NOTHING NEW TO GIVE YOU, OTHER THAN, WHEN THE STATE BAR RAIDS AN LLP THAT THE COURT IS NOW FINDING DOESN’T EXIST, MR. DAVIS, AS AN EMANCIPATED HUMAN BEING — SLAVERY HAVING BEEN ABOLISHED — HAS THE RIGHT TO GO DO BUSINESS UNDER — AS LONG AS IT DOESN’T BREACH THE LLP AGREEMENT, UNDER ANY FIRM HE WANTS. AND HE WENT AND DID THAT, TO PROTECT THE CLIENTS.

I BELIEVE AN OFFICER OF THE COURT AND A LAWYER HAS A DUTY TO PROTECT THE CLIENTS. SO THE FACT THAT HE, AFTER THE RAID, SAID, “I’M NOW GOING TO DO WHAT THE LLP CONTRACT SAYS AND OPERATE MYSELF, SO THE CLIENTS HAVE CONTINUITY,” I DON’T SEE HOW THAT WOULD POSSIBLY BE CRITICIZED. IT’S NOT AN INCONSISTENT POSITION. THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE SPECIFICALLY OF RECORD.

SO YOU KNOW, THE — THAT’S MY RESPONSE TO THE INCONSISTENT POSITION.

THE COURT: SO YOU CONFIRM THAT HE IS PRACTICING AS AN INDIVIDUAL PRACTITIONER, SOLE PRACTITIONER?

MR. STEIN: AS OF TODAY, AS OF — EXCUSE ME. AS OF THE DATE OF THE RAID, TWO DAYS AFTERWARDS, YES, HE WAS PRACTICING AS A SOLE PRACTITIONER. NOW —

THE COURT: OKAY. SO NOW LET ME JUST STOP YOU, AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON. BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE AN LLP THAT HAS — IF ONE EXISTS, AND I DON’T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT, ANY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE; AND IT’S NEVER BEEN ON ANY LETTERHEAD I’VE SEEN.

BUT ANYWAY, IF THAT’S THE CASE, THEN WE HAVE YOU, MR. STEIN, AND A FLORIDA LAWYER, WHO CANNOT PRACTICE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO THERE’S NOBODY IN YOUR FIRM THAT CAN STEP IN AND TAKE OVER THE CASES FOR THE LLP.

NOW, THAT’S IT. LET’S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE, OR WE’LL BE HERE ALL DAY.

MR. STEIN: AND I — AND THE RECORD IS, I DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION. BUT I RESPECT WHAT THE COURT HAS SAID, AND I’LL MOVE ON.

THE COURT: YEAH. I REALLY WANT YOU TO ADDRESS THE REAL ISSUE ABOUT YOUR POSITION THAT YOU WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS, IN VIEW OF THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE.

THE COURT: I’VE GOT TO TELL YOU, THE TENTATIVE THAT YOU DID NOT READ SETS FORTH LOTS OF EVIDENCE THAT TIE YOU TO MANY OF THE DEFENDANTS. THEY DIDN’T HAVE TO TIE YOU TO EVERY DEFENDANT. THEY HAD TO TIE YOU AS BEING PART OF THE SCHEME, AND THEY DID, SUCCESSFULLY.

THAT’S WHAT I WANT YOU TO ADDRESS.

THE COURT: NO, IT’S THE COLLECTIVE EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS YOU ENGAGED IN THIS. 23 MR. STEIN: OKAY. WELL, LET’S GO INTO THE —

THE COURT: IT IS THE COLLECTIVE EVIDENCE, AND IT IS OVERWHELMING.

MR. STEIN: SO WHAT IS THE OTHER EVIDENCE? I’VE RECITED SO FAR — AND I’LL CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH. I’VE RECITED —

I noticed you used the usual cut and paste method of reporting to lead your reader the conclusion that you want them to have. Don’t you think it would be fair to post Mr. Stein’s response to what the “court” said? Otherwise, It appears that you are trying to make Mr. Stein look bad by cut and paste reporting…….like Dan Rather did. Please be responsible and at least post the transcript in its entirety, or Mr. Stein’s response to EVERY TIME THE COURT SAYS SOMETHING. Otherwise, it appears that you are still not allowing Mr. Stein to defend himself.

Steve, Mr. Stein deserves due process to decide if he is guilty or not. Not your cut and paste Honorable Steve Rhodes trial that you are trying to have on your blog. This kind of reporting is exactly what the courts are against. It is called “Trial by Media.”

There is a lot at stake here. Please stop this or at least be fair.

My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

John Wright

Piggybankblog.com

Piggybankblog

Hi Steve:

I thought this would be helpful to post in this article. The Judge seems to be maybe having a change of heart.

I think those are the last two pages of the source document I provided in the article.

Piggybankblog

No it is a new minute order

Piggybankblog

Also I know that someone said that they will always get the true accurate story on your page and not on mine, but I have the whole transcript posted on my site, which would be the true and accurate story. Yours does not post the whole transcript or even make reference to the new minute order that was issued on 10/26/11. Your source document seems to be from the 19th? . At any rate I will be happy to provide you the transcript in its entirety to my link at my page where you can get the most version of the story:

More Available Help

Recent Comments

Read More Comments

The Amazing How to Get Out of Debt Calculator

In a matter of minutes this one single online calculator will demonstrate your different debt relief options available to get out of debt. As far as I know this is the first calculator like this. It's free to use. [Click Here]

Legal Friends and Protectors

A number of consumer attorneys stand behind the site as a friend and legal protector of the work we do here. [Click Here]

Find Me on Facebook

About Me

I'll help you get out of debt totally for free. All you have to do is tell me your situation, ask me your question and I'll help you find an honest and truthful solution to resolve your debt and credit situation.

Get My FREE Get Out of Debt Guy Newsletter

It is the smart thing to do.

I want to keep you posted each weekday with just one email about the latest get out of debt news, scam alerts and information to beat back debt.

You can unsubscribe at any time with just one click.

After you subscribe, check your email to confirm your subscription. If the confirmation email does not appear in your inbox in a few minutes, check your spam folder for it. Sometimes it likes to annoyingly hide there.

Get My FREE Get Out of Debt Guy Newsletter

It is the smart thing to do.

I want to keep you posted each weekday with just one email about the latest get out of debt news, scam alerts and information to beat back debt.

You can unsubscribe at any time with just one click.

After you subscribe, check your email to confirm your subscription. If the confirmation email does not appear in your inbox in a few minutes, check your spam folder for it. Sometimes it likes to annoyingly hide there.